|
its very important that you understand and can write APL code.
|
|
|
|
Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.
Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.
What about the very simple test of: brain on = you're conscious, brain off = you're uncoonscious, brain on = you're conscious again. Such as what we do when we unduce coma or people go into coma due to brain trauma, or when people go braindead for a while and then come back from it? If I was to see a light being on, flipped a switch and saw it go off, then flipped the switch and see it come on again, the conclusion I would make is that the switch controls the light, not that the light exists outside of the realm of the switch, and simply goes away somewhere else when I flip the switch. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any of that? that argument is only applicable for human(or otherwise biological living thing) consciousness, not for consciousness in general. |
|
|
|
Crazy. To think that back in 2011 we were arguing about whether $8 was overpriced...
$8 was overpriced in '11. things change. |
|
|
|
Yup, its up up and away time.  see you at 1000-2000 usd. |
|
|
|
So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?
None of them. they only proofed that there exists a superior being. They did not even make the proof, that was Gödel who did that, they only checked it for correctness. |
|
|
|
What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?
Dude!!! its not me you are having that discussion with, get your shit together, and wait for the right guy to respond. Im not the bibel-guy, that's maz. Im arguing solipsism, and lack of a reality. (All your evidence is bogus, its all a hallucination!! You can't argue with that.) God hates you. Not my problem. |
|
|
|
What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?
Dude!!! its not me you are having that discussion with, get your shit together, and wait for the right guy to respond. Im not the bibel-guy, that's maz. Im arguing solipsism, and lack of a reality. (All your evidence is bogus, its all a hallucination!! You can't argue with that.) |
|
|
|
Old news. How does this argument differ in any significant way from St. Anselm's ontological argument, first made in the Eleventh Century (and arguably sooner than that)?
Its more logically sound, but in its essence its the same... And computer scientists have been able to confirm gödel's proof with a proof checker algorithm, which is awesome and nice, and a great leap forward for proof theory and computational proof checkers. |
|
|
|
4) Use astrophysics to mathematically determine the general state of the universe in it's infancy.
5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
no, you can not. to a very close degree, yes, they can. Can I, specifically? Not without revisiting calculus -- and only then could I determine the position of the moon. You should follow up your claims with WHY I cannot. It's helpful to the conversation. @4: You can not mathematically speak about the universe. You can make a statistic/mathematical "model" of the universe. But math itself does not in any way describe the universe, or is related to it in any way. The use of the word mathematics in this context, is a rape of the word. @5: To be able to simulate the universe faster then the universe itself within itself, is a contradiction equivalence to the Russell's paradox. To simulate the universe and thereby know its future you would have to be in possession of something bigger than the universe. I don't think you have that. Even if we look away from the semantics, scientists are still discussing the fate and the birth of the universe, and if such things even exists. Or even if they can talk consistently about it. |
|
|
|
4) Use astrophysics to mathematically determine the general state of the universe in it's infancy.
5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
no, you can not. |
|
|
|
Your probably one of those folk who have never even held a bible. If not, then please describe how the bible substantiates it's self through prophecy and how archaeological and scientific evidence has backed these up. They exist and there are many. Then maybe you could tell us why you don't agree with them, in relation to this statement 'Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.'.
...on the other hand it does also say that the earth is only 8000 years old. the difference between scientists and religious fanatics, is that scientists know they are wrong and change their opinion and reconsiders their position when they encounter new and contradictory evidence. Religious fanatics don't, they insist that they are right even when there is evidence telling them otherwise. |
|
|
|
Consider examining the evidence which exists against the made-up stories in the bible. Your mind will be blown.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Trust me I've investigated evolution heavily, it did not satisfy me at all. In fact if anything I came to the conclusion that evolutionists are more blindly zealot than a lot of religious people. and that's saying something! nice! a christian who actually says he knows about evolution. Can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it? |
|
|
|
Hell is not a made up.
[references to very old and entertaining fantasy book]
... |
|
|
|
Based on the premise that Gödel's axioms(the stuff proves rely on) is true the conclusions(god exists) is also true. But it's still up to oneself to decide if the axioms are true or not.
Gödel is indeed mind-bending, confusing, and very scary stuff.
So faith in Gödel may replace faith in Göd? Because if you have the first, then you have a proof of the second, and need no more faith for that? No, faith in what gödel wrote/said implies faith in god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proofOn the other hand, gödel also proved that a system of axioms strong enough to represent the natural numbers are either incomplete(there exists true statements that can not be proven) or inconsistent(there exists a statement that can both be proven and dis-proven). |
|
|
|
|
Based on the premise that Gödel's axioms(the stuff proves rely on) is true the conclusions(god exists) is also true. But it's still upto oneself to decide if the axioms are true or not.
Gödel is indeed mindbending, confusing, and very scary stuff.
|
|
|
|
also scrypt is advenced protection and more secure then just sha256!, more volume also faster block!
you have no idea about what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
it would sort of not be a paper wallet anymore, but a toast wallet.
|
|
|
|
shut up, you people. he can not disprove that he is realsolid, and anyone else can also not disprove that they are not realsolid. Anyone, could always claim that what the accused said was a lie, or that the evidence was fabricated.
One can only proof that he is Realsolid, but not disprove it.
^^^^^^^^^^^ shhhh, keep it quiet. Realsolid's idiot's are fun to play with LOL Now all we need to complete this accusation is for the "Coinhunter" account to log in for the first time in over a year, make a post here and confirm it! ~BCX~ yup, ignore what i said before. his post confirms that he is Realsolid. |
|
|
|
|
shut up, you people. he can not disprove that he is realsolid, and anyone else can also not disprove that they are not realsolid. Anyone, could always claim that what the accused said was a lie, or that the evidence was fabricated.
One can only proof that he is Realsolid, but not disprove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
